A new method of assessing ability to perform activities of daily living: Design, methods and baseline data

Ophthalmic Epidemiology

Volumn 16, Issue 2, 2009, Pages 107-114

  Lorenzana, Luciano ^a,b   Lankaranian, Dara ^a   Dugar, Jyoti ^a   Mayer, Jason ^a   Palejwala, Neal ^a   Kulkarni, Kaushal ^a   Warrian, Kevin ^a   Boghara, Zarana ^a   Richman, Jesse ^a   Wizov, Sheryl ^a   Spaeth, George ^a   Almodin, Juliana ^a  

^a THOMAS JEFFERSON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b WILLS EYE HOSPITAL   (United States)

Author keywords

Activities of daily living; Disability; Glaucoma; Performance based measures of visual function; Visual function; Visual performance assessment

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGE DISTRIBUTION; AGED; ARTICLE; BINOCULAR VISION; CLINICAL ASSESSMENT; CLINICAL PROTOCOL; CONTRAST SENSITIVITY; DAILY LIFE ACTIVITY; DISABILITY; FACIAL EXPRESSION; FEMALE; GLAUCOMA; HUMAN; ILLUMINATION; INFORMED CONSENT; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MOBILIZATION; MONOCULAR VISION; MOTION; NATIONAL EYE INSTITUTE VISUAL FUNCTION QUESTIONNAIRE; OPEN ANGLE GLAUCOMA; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PATIENT ASSESSMENT; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; READING; RECOGNITION; SIMULATION; STEREOSCOPIC VISION; TASK PERFORMANCE; VISUAL ACUITY; VISUAL FIELD; VISUAL FIELD DEFECT; DEPTH PERCEPTION; METHODOLOGY; MIDDLE AGED; OPTIC NERVE DISEASE; PATHOPHYSIOLOGY; PHYSIOLOGY; SICKNESS IMPACT PROFILE; VISUAL DISORDER;

ACTIVITIES OF DAILY LIVING; ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; CONTRAST SENSITIVITY; DEPTH PERCEPTION; DISABILITY EVALUATION; FEMALE; GLAUCOMA; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; OPTIC NERVE DISEASES; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; RESEARCH DESIGN; SICKNESS IMPACT PROFILE; VISION DISORDERS; VISION, BINOCULAR; VISUAL ACUITY; VISUAL FIELDS;

EID: 65449134872     PISSN: 09286586     EISSN: 17445086     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/09286580902738142     Document Type: Article

References (24)

1. Margolis MK, Coyne K, Kennedy-Martin T, et al. Vision-specific instruments for the assessment of health-related quality of life and visual functioning: A literature review. Pharmacoeconomics. 2002;20(12):791-812.
2. Lester M, Zingirian M. Quality of life in patients with early, moderate and advanced glaucoma. Eye. 2002;16(1):44-49.
3. Owsley C, McGwin G, Jr. Depression and the 25-Item National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire in older adults. Oph - thalmology.2004;111(12):2259-264.
4. Guralnik JM, Branch LG, et al. Physical performance measures in aging research. J Gerontol.1989;44(5):M141-M146.
5. Friedman SM, Munoz B, Rubin GS, et al. Characteristics of discrepancies between self-reported visual function and measured reading speed. Salisbury Eye Evaluation Project Team. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci.1999;40(5):858-864.
6. Parrish RK, Gedde SJ, et al. Visual function and quality of life among patients with glaucoma. Arch Ophthalmol. 1997;115(11): 1447-1455.
7. Guralnik JM, Simonsick EM, et al. A short physical performance battery assessing lower extremity function: Association with self- reported disability and prediction of mortality and nursing home admission. J Gerontol.1994;49(2):M85-M94.
8. Reuben DB and Siu AL. An objective measure of physical function of elderly outpatients. The Physical Performance Test. J Am Geriatr Soc.1990;38(10):1105-1112.
9. West SK, Rubin GS, et al. How does visual impairment affect performance on tasks of everyday life? The SEE Project. Salisbury Eye Evaluation. Arch Ophthalmol.2002;120(6):774-780.
10. Szlyk JP, Seiple W, et al. Perceived and actual performance of daily tasks: Relationship to visual function tests in individuals with retinitis pigmentosa. Ophthalmology.2001;108(1):65-75.
11. Turco, PD, Connolly J, et al. Assessment of functional vision performance: A new test for low vision patients. Ophthalmic Epidemiol. 2004;1(1):15-25.
12. Haymes, SA, Johnston, AW, et al. Relationship between vision impairment and ability to perform activities of daily living. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 2002;22(2):79-91.
13. Altangerel U, Spaeth GL, Steinmann WC. Assessment of function related to vision (AFREV). Ophthalmic Epidemiol.2006;13(1):67-80.
14. Linacre. Sample Size and Item Calibration Stability. Rasch Measure Trans 1994;7(4):328.
15. Hodapp E, Parrish II R, Anderson D. Clinical Decisions in Glaucoma. St. Louis: Mosby-Year Book, Inc., 1993.
16. Bailey IL, Bullimore MA, et al. Clinical grading and the effects of scaling. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci.1991;32(2):422-432.
17. Pelli DG, Robson JG, Wilkins AJ. The design of a new letter chart for measuring contrast sensitivity. ClinVis Sci.1998;2(3):187-199.
18. Spaeth GL, Henderer J, Liu C, et al. The disc damage likelihood scale: Reproducibility of a new method of estimating the amount of optic nerve damage caused by glaucoma. Trans Am Ophthalmol Soc.2002;100:181-185; discussion 5-6.
19. Mangione CM, Lee PP, Gutierrez PR, et al. Development of the 25-item National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire. Arch Ophthalmol.2001;119(7):1050-1058.
20. Faul F, Erdfelder E, Lang AG, et al G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behav Res Meth.2007;39:175-191.
21. Green K, Frantom E, et al. Survey development and validation with the Rasch model. Proceedings of the International Conference on Questionnaire Development, Evaluation and Testing. Charleston, SC. November 14-17, 2002.
22. Feinstein AR, Josephy BR, et al. Scientific and clinical problems in indexes of functional disability. Ann Intern Med.1986;105(3):413-420.
23. Lennie P, Van Hemel SB. Visual Impairments: Benefits. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 2002.
24. West SK, Munoz B, et al. Function and visual impairment in a population-based study of older adults. The SEE project. Salisbury Eye Evaluation. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci.1997;38(1):72-82.